WATCH: Donald Rumsfeld Struggles To Explain Why We Invaded Iraq But Should Stay Out Of Libya

Last night he showed up for a surprisingly tough live interview with Piers Morgan.

Morgan, whose British roots may enable him to be somewhat more aggressive when it comes to questions about Iraq, pushed Rumsfeld to explain why, if Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi are equally evil, it was necessary to invade Iraq but not Libya.

“Why are we leaving [the Libyans] to be massacred by [Muammar] Qaddafi in ever-growing numbers when we stepped in in Iraq?” Morgan asked.

Rumsfeld, who had just said Qaddafi and Hussein were equally bad, jumped around a bit before citing the “broad, uniform, almost undebatable agreement that there was a risk of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.”

“Isn’t that a slightly disingenuous?” Morgan interrupted.

Rumsfeld, shifting uneasily in his chair, denied that it was disingenuous. He pointed out the blessing of the U.N. to invade and the post-facto, hotly debatedDuelfer Report confirming that Saddam Hussein had the “ability in a matter of weeks,” to make weapons. Morgan, unconvinced, took Rumsfeld to task and pointed out that the war was not fought “on a pretext of regime change,” but on the issues of WMDs.

Rumsfeld’s response was that he personally would not have invaded Iraq without the WMDs. But then, in the same breath, he denied that the purported presence of such weapons was the only reason the U.S. went in.

Confused? That’s because Rumsfeld is currently failing undergraduate logic with his argument.

“It was a combination of things,” Rumsfeld insisted.

When Morgan pressed him again, saying Rumsfeld deferred the question as to the president’s decision, that he couldn’t speak for George W. Bush.

Video below. Rummy was maybe more squirmy here than in all his past interviews combined.